The federal court in Virginia ruled that it could have an impact on the lawsuit against US President Donald Trump, accused of blocking users on Twitter. District Judge James Cacheris (James C. Cacheris) ruled that the chairman of the Loudon County Council of Phyllis Randall (Phyllis Randall) violated the right to free speech of the voter when he blocked it on his Facebook page. Brian Davison, in his lawsuit, stated that he was blocked after accusing the Loudon County School Council of corruption of commenting on the publication of the chairperson, in which she asked the local residents to express their thoughts and opinions.

Judge Kacheris explained the decision by the fact that since Ms. Randall is acting as a public official on her Facebook page, she violated the First Amendment when she stopped the opportunity to critically comment on the elected official. The judge considers this a form of discrimination on the basis of the point of view that the American Civil Liberties Union qualifies as a violation of the constitution, since in this case there was pressure on the individual's right to express disagreement without fear of persecution.

Lawyer Phyllis Randall argued that the page of a Facebook official does not represent the government, because she leads her without using the resources of the county. However, since the page was used to request voters' comments during business hours, the judge did not accept this argument. Phyllis Randall also said that she deleted Brian Davison's comment only because he mentioned members of the families of officials, and the lock lifted him after 12 hours. But this explanation did not affect the judge's decision.

Despite the judicial decision, Ms Randall was not sentenced to a fine, as the consequences of her actions were minimal. However, the very decision of the court is quite significant in the US, because the judge wrote in the ruling that in this case an important issue is raised about constitutional restrictions in the application of elective officials in social networks to accounts. The plaintiffs against the US president warmly support this court decision and told The Wall Street Journal: "We hope that the courts will consider this opinion as a roadmap and confirm the unconstitutional behavior of President Trump when he blocks his critics on Twitter".